History NewerThanTheyThink / Literature

** Until the early 19th century, nouns were usually capitalized in English writing (personal names often being ''in italics''; this practice survives in German to this day.

* {{Novel}}s as we know them are only 200-300 years old (''Literature/DonQuixote'', the first modern novel, was published in 1605-1615). Older long-form fiction was mostly BasedOnAGreatBigLie or an epic poem. Though you could argue that Creator/ChretienDeTroyes wrote quite an epic... novel in the [=XIIth=] century, which was adapted a few years later by Robert de Boron under the name ''Le roman du Graal'' - literally "The novel of the Graal". And in the [=XIVth=], Helie de Boron even avoided verses.

* The whole concept of writing itself counts: the oldest known written words (well, pictographs at least) are about 5200 years old. While this ''is'' a long time from the perspective of a human lifespan, even the shortest estimates of the age of the human species (''homo sapiens'') are around 100,000 years old, meaning humans have only had writing for (at most) 5 percent or so of their existence. To put it another way, if you condense human history into a single year, ''homo sapiens'' emerged on New Year's Day, but they didn't develop writing until the 12th of December.

* ''[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf Beowulf]]'' is one of the definitive classics of English literature, but despite dating to the 11th century (or even earlier), it was never transcribed until 1786, until which point it survived in a single damaged manuscript.

* The October 16, 1997 of ''The New York Times'' was the first to be printed in black-and-white, before which the paper was black-and-white exclusively.

--> '''Creator/JamesJoyce''': When I hear the word "stream" uttered with such a revolting primness, [[TakeThat what I think of is urine]] and not the contemporary novel. And besides, it isn't new...[[Creator/WilliamShakespeare Shakespeare]] used it continually, much too much in my opinion, and there's ''Literature/TristramShandy'', not to mention [[Theatre/TheOresteia the Agamemnon]].

* The prose poem "Literature/{{Desiderata}}" has been widely attributed to being [[http://www.fleurdelis.com/desidera.htm found in an old church and dated 1692]], but was actually written by Max Ehrmann in 1927. The 20th-century English it's written in kind of gives it away.
* Lower-case letters were first developed in the 8th century, as a kind of shorthand used by bureaucrats who worked for Charlemagne. Documents and literary works older than this were written IN ALLCAPS ONLY.
** There was a form of shorthand for the Roman alphabet prior to this, but it had largely been forgotten by the time modern minuscules were created. It can still be seen on some inscriptions.

* Standardized spelling at a national level is also a relatively recent phenomenon, generally traced back to when dictionaries were first compiled. In English this was Samuel Johnson's dictionary in 1755. Medieval scribes spelled words however they wanted, and didn't care about consistency, often spelling a word multiple ways even within a single page of text.

* Most depictions of ''Literature/{{Frankenstein}}'' have little to do with Creator/MaryShelley's original work. In the original book there is no Igor, castle, or angry peasants storming the place. In fact Victor Frankenstein realizes right after making his monster what a horrible mistake he made (in fact, that's rather the problem). The monster himself, in contrast to most depictions, is quite articulate and of remarkable agility. The story most people think of originates from the 1931 film of the same name. Igor was popularized by 1970s ''Film/YoungFrankenstein'' which parodied a tradition that coalesced from various mad scientists' henchmen over the years, some being named variously Igor or Ygor, since ''Son of Frankenstein'' in 1939. (The 1931 film didn't have an Igor though it contained a similar character named Fritz.)

** Likewise, the monster was ''never'' referred to as Frankenstein in the novel, even though people have started doing so in recent years. Frankenstein was his ''creator''. Also, in the book, the monster isn't a mindless killing machine. He displays many human traits, and can even be viewed as sympathetic in some parts, although he certainly does some pretty terrible things as the plot progresses.[[note]] The real monster is, arguably, "good" Victor's horrible parenting skills, as they are what drive the creature to desperation and murder.[[/note]]

** The book also alludes to several historcial alchemist which kind of implies that Victor used a method similar to that of a [[OurHomunculiAreDifferent Homunculus]].
* Orcs, "halflings" and tall, beautiful elves are such a staple in fantasy nowadays that when one reads ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'' it's tempting to react with ItsBeenDone. However, Tolkien invented much of those concepts, with the exception of his elvish depiction. This originated in ancient Icelandic and Germanic beliefs about TheFairFolk -- he talks about the history, in terms of beliefs about elves or fairies being little creatures, in his essay "[[http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/fairystories-tolkien.pdf On Fairy-Stories]]". Lord Dunsany's ''The King of Elfland's Daughter'' was the first work of literature to depart from the concept of elves as "little people". Despite that, most of the modern depictions of elves take their inspiration from Tolkien's elves, and in more than just appearance.
** Many people are unaware that ents were not actually a part of traditional mythology. Although the idea of talking walking trees did not originate with Tolkien: many depictions of dryads are similar to Tolkien's ents.
* Ivan Barkov is best known for his obscene poem "Luka Mudischev", with all the other works being secondary, and non obscene works being all but forgotten. Except that even the most basic analysis of "Luka" shows it was written about a century after Barkov, and other works attributed date from as late as the 20th century.

* The whole concept of writing itself counts: the oldest known written words (well, pictographs at least) are about 5200 years old. While this ''is'' a pretty long time from the perspective of a human lifespan, even the shortest estimates of the age of the human species (''homo sapiens'') are around 100,000 years old, meaning humans have only had writing for (at most) 5 percent or so of their existence. To put it another way, if you condense human history into a single year, ''homo sapiens'' emerged on New Year's Day, but they didn't develop writing until the 12th of December.

* Unlike many other canonical ancient texts, which have been studied for several centuries at least, the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi Code of Hammurabi]] was unknown until its rediscovery in 1901.
* ''Literature/TheEpicOfGilgamesh'' is also a relatively recent addition to the canon, having been unearthed in the 1850s and first translated into English in 1875.

* {{Novel}}s as we know them are only 200-300 years old (''Literature/DonQuixote'', the first modern novel, was published in 1605-1615). Older long-form fiction was mostly BasedOnAGreatBigLie or an epic poem.
** Though you could argue that Creator/ChretienDeTroyes wrote quite an epic... novel in the XIIth century, which was adapted a few years later by Robert de Boron under the name ''Le roman du Graal'' - literally "The novel of the Graal". And in the [=XIVth=], Helie de Boron even avoided verses.

** Ents, too. Many people are unaware that ents were not actually a part of traditional mythology. Although the idea of talking walking trees did not originate with Tolkien: many depictions of dryads are similar to Tolkien's ents.
** Oddly enough, the ''word'' "orc" is NOT an example of this trope. It's actually OlderThanTheyThink: ultimately coming from the Latin term "Orcus" meaning "Hell". This is mostly because Tolkien cheekily tried to make it look like he'd made up the word by giving it a full etymology in his Elvish languages. However, a lot of the reason that people think Tolkien didn't make up the concept of orcs is because of the semantic drift of that word over the last fifty years (actually the last thirty). Nowadays when one hears the word "orc", it typically conjurs the idea of a ProudWarriorRace. Tolkien's orcs however, are nothing of the kind (they aren't smart enough to be proud, or effective warriors).

* The concept of standardized spelling is also a relatively recent phenomenon, generally traced back to when dictionaries were first compiled. Mainly Samuel Johnson's first dictionary in 1755. Medieval scribes spelled words however they wanted, and didn't care about consistency, often spelling a word multiple ways even within a single page of text.

** There was a form of shorthand for the latin alphabet prior to this, but it had largely been forgotten by the time modern minuscules were created. It can still be seen on some inscriptions.

** Though you could argue that Creator/ChretienDeTroyes wrote quite an epic... novel in the XIIth century, which was adaptated a few years later by Robert de Boron under the name Le roman du Graal - literally "The novel of the Graal". And in the [=XIVth=], Helie de Boron even avoided verses.

* The use of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetic_apostrophe apologetic apostrophe]] in Scots writing has only occurred since the 18th century, emerging to indicate the differences between spellings of Scots words and their English cognates. In other words, this use of the apostrophe in Scots exists only because of the Anglicisation of Scotland, and from an English perspective, the recognition among Scots writers that mostly native English speakers would be reading their work. In reality, it was also sometimes forced on reluctant writers by ExecutiveMeddling. Older Scots works do not use these apostrophes nor are they considered acceptable today.

* The use of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetic_apostrophe apologetic apostrophe]] in Scots writing has only occurred since the 18th century, emerging to indicate the differences between spellings of Scots words and their English cognates. In other words, this use of the apostrophe in Scots exists only because of the Anglicisation of Scotland, and the recognition among Scots writers that mostly native English speakers would be reading their work. Older Scots works do not use these apostrophes.

** Though you could argue that Chretien de Troyes wrote quite an epic... novel in the XIIth century, which was adaptated a few years later by Robert de Boron under the name Le roman du Graal - literally "The novel of the Graal". And in the [=XIVth=], Helie de Boron even avoided verses.

* The use of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetic_apostrophe apologetic apostrophe]] in Scots writing has only occurred since the 18th century, emerging to indicate the differences between spellings of Scots words with their English cognates. In other words, this use of the apostrophe in Scots exists only because of the Anglicisation of Scotland, and the recognition among Scots writers that mostly native English speakers would be reading their work. Older Scots works do not use these apostrophes.

* The use of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetic_apostrophe apologetic apostrophe]] in Scots writing has only occurred since the 18th century, emerging to indicate the differences between spellings of Scots words with their English cognates. In other words, this use of the apostrophe in Scots exists only because of Anglicisation, and the recognition among Scots writers that mostly native English speakers would be reading their work. Older Scots works do not use these apostrophes.

* The use of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetic_apostrophe apologetic apostrophe]] in Scots writing has only occurred since the 18th century, emerging to indicate the differences between spellings of Scots words with their English cognates. In other words, this use of the apostrophe in Scots exists only because of Anglicisation, and the recognition among Scots writers that mostly native English speakers would be reading their work. Older Scots work do not use these apostrophes.

* The use of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetic_apostrophe apologetic apostrophe]] in Scots writing has only occurred since the 18th century, emerging to indicate the differences between spellings of Scots words with their English cognates. In other words, this use of the apostrophe in Scots exists only because of Anglicisation, and the recognition that mostly native English speakers would be reading their work. Older Scots work do not use these apostrophes.

** Until the early 19th century, nouns were usually capitalized in English writing; this practice survives in German to this day.

** The book also alludes to several historcial alchemist which kind of implies that Victor used a method similar to that of a [[OurHomunculiAreDifferent Homunculi]].

** Oddly enough, the ''word'' "orc" is NOT an example of this trope. It's actually OlderThanTheyThink: ultimately coming from the Latin term "Orcus" meaning "Hell". This is mostly because Tolkien cheekily tried to make it look like he'd made up the word by giving it a full etymology in his Elvish languages. However, a lot of the reason that people think Tolkien didn't make up the concept of orcs is because of the semantic drift of that word over the last fifty years (actually the last thirty). Nowadays when one hears the word "orc", it typically conjurs the idea of a ProudWarriorRace. Tolkien's orcs however, are nothing of the kind (they aren't smart enough to be proud, or effective warriors). Attempting to retroactively apply the modern concept of "orc" to Tolkien's orcs leads to a considerable amount of FanDumb.

** Ents, too. Many people are unaware that ents were not actually a part of traditional mythology.